Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Foundations of the Anglican Church LXXXI

Martyrdom of Bishop Hooper

Back to the reign of Mary and the fate of the
Reformers in that reign. Mary was not
the fanatical Catholic that John Foxe in his famous Actes and Monuments (aka “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs”) and his literary heirs, the 19th
century Evangelical Anglican authors, would make her out to be. But she was a tormented soul, and her torment
caused pain—real pain—for countless of religious dissenters.

Remember that for the first seventeen years of her
life she had been not only a royal princess, but the heir-apparent to the
Throne of England. On an even more
important foundation, for the first ten years or so of her life she enjoyed the
security of her parents having a reasonably loving marriage. When she was bout thirteen that marriage was
souring fast, and Mary found herself torn between the conflicting interests of
her two parents. At this period of life
she began to experience severe menstrual issues that may have been—it is too
late for an autopsy—due to the stress of seeing her parents’ marriage fall apart
and her own future cast in doubt. Her
father, whom she adored, “didn’t want” her as Queen to succeed him. He loved a yet-to-conceived son over a
daughter whom he had fashioned into an elegant and learned woman. When Archbishop Cranmer—and this key people,
pay attention—annulled her parents’ marriage, Mary lost the Title “Royal
Highness,” and her status as a Princess. She was now simply The Lady Mary, the King’s
bastard. This is a difficult comedown,
and if so for an English Princess, even more for an Infanta of Spain,
granddaughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, the founders of the Spanish Empire and
the most powerful (as well as the most blue-blooded) royalty of Europe. All of a sudden her prospects for a marriage
of rank and a life of privilege disappeared.
Her father appointed her a
Lady-in-Waiting the little Boleyn baby that had taken her place in
history. That was humiliating, but what
was far more painful is that he separated her from her mother in an attempt to
force both Mary and Katherine to acknowledge the annulment, the Boleyn
marriage, and the succession of the new Princess, Elizabeth.

When Mary came to the throne she freely promised not
to disturb the consciences of any of her subjects. Moreover, as we have seen, bishops and clergy—even
those who had supported Cranmer’s Reform—were allowed to remain in their Sees
and Benefices (and many promoted) providing they were willing to give up their
wives, and return to Catholic doctrine and practice. One has to admit that the clergy of the
Church of England were, for the most part, more committed to their having a job
than having a wife. But even today how
many marriages falter on career vs. commitment?

Remember: Mary had a score that she was determined to
settle and that was with Archbishop Cranmer, the man whose toadieness to her
father, had broken her mother’s heart and taken away her own happiness for over
twenty years. Mary was going to make
the Archbishop pay. We will get to that
in a future posting as Cranmer’s role in the reign of Queen Mary deserves an
entry—at least one—of its own.

In 1554, as part of the negotiations to readmit the
Church of England to the Roman Communion, the old Heresy Acts were
revived. Mary had already arrested the
handful of Protestant bishops who would not back down on Cranmer’s
Reforms. She now prosecuted them and had
them executed. As the reign went on—and
we will look at this—Mary seems to have become more and more impassioned
against the religious changed that had taken place in England. There are a number of reasons for this, but one
of the leading reasons undoubtedly was her increasing anxiety that she would
not be able to provide a heir to the throne and the Crown would go to her Protestant
sister Elizabeth who would restore the Protestant faith. Mary was determined to keep England Catholic,
even after she died.

It was only in 1555, two years after her coming to
the throne, that persecution of Protestants broke out in force. In the remaining three and a half years of her
reign, about 300 ordinary Englishmen died in defense of their Protestant faith,
most very cruelly by being burned “at the stake.” In the big picture Mary was no more “bloody”
than had been her father or would be her sister in the days of their having
worn the crown. But the memory of the “Marian
Martyrs” long provided grist for the mill of anti-papalism in England.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About The Man Behind the Curtain

Welcome to "What Sister Never Knew and Father Never Told You." I have always had a passion for history, and Church History (or, as it is better termed "The History of the Church") and in this blog I hope to bring up interesting--and frequently deliberately overlooked--facets of the history of the Catholic Church. I will probably also dip into the history of other Christian Churches from time to time and even that of non-Christian religions, but I do hope to keep my focus on the History of the Catholic Church. I am particularly anxious to show that the Catholic faith--which while doctrine tells us "comes from the Apostles" (and presumably to them from Jesus) is in fact, like all historical institutions, an evolutionary phenomenon. There is a huge difference between Tradition and traditions,. What many"Traditionalists" are caught up with today is not Tradition at all but various minor customs of human origin and little or no theological significance. As a Catholic myself, I am anxious to separate the wheat of the Gospel from the chaff of religiosity.

I am a life-long Catholic and a professional historian (M.A., Ph.D) who also has a Master's in Theology. My grade school (Sisters of Mercy), high-school (Society of Jesus), and undergrad university (Society of Jesus) education is all in official Catholic, Kennedy Directory listed, educational Institutions as is the Grad School where I earned my Theology Degree. My History Degrees, Master's and Doctorate, are from a private East Coast University (where Jews teach Christianity to atheists) that ranks in the top one-hundred American Colleges and Universities lists. I chose a secular campus for my history work precisely so that I could not be accused of having done an "in-house" educational program. As it worked out I had one Catholic professor for one course and that course was "The History of Islam." I currenlty teach on a graduate faculty and specialize in medieval spirituality (of which I am not only a professor but a practioner) and in History of the American Church. I have also been invited around the English Speaking World to give classes and workshops--England, Ireland, Australia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, India, and Texas (among other places). I have spoken at conferences in Rome, Sao Paulo, Nantes, Krakow and other non-Anglophone locations in Europe and the Americas. I have done lecture tours on a prominent cruise line commeting on European History and the various ports of call--a great job if you can get it. In other words, I am not an amateur at this.

I am thoroughly committed to the program of the SecondVatican Council as it was promulgated in 1965 (as contrasted with how it has been reinterpreted, in some cases almost out of existence) by both self-appointed and divinely anointed authorities over the last thirty-some years. As I get older I realize that the Council is an opportunity for us Catholics to embrace the Gospel as the guiding light of our lives and is toogreat an opportunity to be bypassed by those who are anxious to see a revival of the juridicism, triumphalism, and clericalism decried by Bishop Emil de Smedt in the opening session of the Council. There are those "fleshpots of Egypt Catholics" who want to retreat to the slavery of pre-conciliar American Catholicism," but as for me, I still believe that John XXIII (and Pius XII before him and Paul VI after him) saw a promised land of a mature and evangelical Catholicism so needed in the 21st century and I for one embrace the future, not the past.

By the way, historians are those who embrace the future and realized that the past is there to guide us toward it. Those who embrace the past and seek to restore it are antiquarians. Christians know that we stand facing the future for that is from where the Kingdom of God calls us. Those who prefer restoring the past have not yet heard that call. Or, as one spiritual director once told me: "If God had wanted you to live in the 13th century (or the 18th, or the first half of the twentieth) he would have put you there. He put you in the present facing the future.That is where your vocation is."